More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web

Authors:

Chris ReedAuthors Info & Claims

Artificial Intelligence, Volume 171, Issue 10-15

Pages 897 - 921

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.015

Published: 01 July 2007 Publication History

Abstract

This paper lays theoretical and software foundations for a World Wide Argument Web (WWAW): a large-scale Web of inter-connected arguments posted by individuals to express their opinions in a structured manner. First, we extend the recently proposed Argument Interchange Format (AIF) to express arguments with a structure based on Walton's theory of argumentation schemes. Then, we describe an implementation of this ontology using the RDF Schema Semantic Web-based ontology language, and demonstrate how our ontology enables the representation of networks of arguments on the Semantic Web. Finally, we present a pilot Semantic Web-based system, ArgDF, through which users can create arguments using different argumentation schemes and can query arguments using a Semantic Web query language. Manipulation of existing arguments is also handled in ArgDF: users can attack or support parts of existing arguments, or use existing parts of an argument in the creation of new arguments. ArgDF also enables users to create new argumentation schemes. As such, ArgDF is an open platform not only for representing arguments, but also for building interlinked and dynamic argument networks on the Semantic Web. This initial public-domain tool is intended to seed a variety of future applications for authoring, linking, navigating, searching, and evaluating arguments on the Web.

References

[1]

Antoniou, G. and van Harmelen, F., A Semantic Web Primer (Cooperative Information Systems). 2004. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[2]

K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, P. McBurney, PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies, Artificial Intelligence and Law (2006), online only

Digital Library

[3]

In: Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (Eds.), The Description Logic Handbook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Digital Library

[4]

Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O., The Semantic Web. Scientific American. 29-37.

[5]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

[6]

Broekstra, J., van Harmelen, F. and Kampman, A., Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF Schema. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J.A. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2342. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Digital Library

[7]

Buckingham Shum, S., Uren, V., Li, G., Sereno, B. and Mancini, C., Modelling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems (Special Issue on Computational Modelling of Naturalistic Argumentation). v22 i1. 17-47.

Digital Library

[8]

Carbogim, D., Robertson, D. and Lee, J., Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review. v15 i2. 119-149.

Digital Library

[9]

Cayzer, S., Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge management. Communications of the ACM. v47 i12. 47-52.

Digital Library

[10]

Chesòevar, C.I., Maguitman, A. and Loui, R., Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys. v32 i4. 337-383.

Digital Library

[11]

Chesòevar, C.I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G. and Willmott, S., Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review. v21 i4. 293-316.

Digital Library

[12]

J. Conklin, Designing organizational memory: Preserving intellectual assets in a knowledge economy, Gognexus White Paper, 2001

[13]

Conklin, J. and Begeman, M.L., gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems. v6 i4. 303-331.

Digital Library

[14]

T. Davies, B. O'Connor, A.A. Cochran, J.J. Effrat, An online environment for democratic deliberation: Motivations, principles, and design, Working paper, Symbolic Systems Program, Stanford University, March 2004

[15]

Dung, P.M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence. v77 i2. 321-358.

Digital Library

[16]

Farnham, S., Chesley, H.R., McGhee, D.E., Kawal, R. and Landau, J., Structured online interactions: Improving the decision-making of small discussion groups. In: CSCW '00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM Press, New York.

Digital Library

[17]

Gelder, T.V., A Reason!Able approach to critical thinking. Principal Matters: The Journal for Australasian Secondary School Leaders. v34 i6. 34-39.

[18]

Gordon, T.F., An open, scalable and distributed platform for public discourse. In: Dittrich, K., König, W., Oberweis, A., Rannenberg, K., Wahlster, W. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 232-234.

[19]

Gordon, T.F. and Karacapilidis, N., The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, ACM Press, New York.

Digital Library

[20]

Gordon, T.F. and Walton, D., The Carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Digital Library

[21]

Grennan, W.S., Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques. 1997. McGill Queens University Press, Montreal, Quebec.

[22]

D. Hitchcock, Sampling scholarly arguments: A test of a theory of good inference, in: H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale (Eds.), Argument and its Applications: Proceedings of OSSA 2005, 2001

[23]

Karacapilidis, N. and Papadias, D., Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The HERMES system. Information Systems. v26. 259-277.

Digital Library

[24]

Karvounarakis, G., Magkanaraki, A., Alexaki, S., Christophides, V., Plexousakis, D., Scholl, M. and Tolle, K., Querying the Semantic Web with RQL. Computer Networks. v42 i5. 617-640.

Digital Library

[25]

In: Kirschner, P.A., Schum, S.J.B., Carr, C.S. (Eds.), Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, Springer Verlag, London.

Digital Library

[26]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

[27]

Lee, J., SIBYL: a tool for managing group decision rationale. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, ACM Press, New York.

Digital Library

[28]

Leuf, B. and Cunningham, W., The Wiki Way: Quick collaboration on the Web. 2001. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA.

Digital Library

[29]

Lüehrs, R., Malsch, T. and Voss, K., Internet, discourses and democracy. In: Terano, T., Nishida, T., Namatame, A., Tsumoto, S., Ohsawa, Y., Washio, T. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2253. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. pp. 67-74.

Digital Library

[30]

McBurney, P. and Parsons, S., Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000), Morgan Kaufmann, Stanford, CA.

Digital Library

[31]

McBurney, P. and Parsons, S., Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (Special Issue on Representations of Uncertainty). v32 i1--4. 125-169.

Digital Library

[32]

McGuinness, D.L., Question answering on the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems. v19 i1. 82-85.

[33]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

[34]

Noy, N.F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R.W. and Musen, M.A., Creating Semantic Web contents with Protégé-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems. v16 i2. 60-71.

Digital Library

[35]

Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. 1969. University of Notre Dame Press.

[36]

Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D.N., Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), ACM Press, New York.

Digital Library

[37]

Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G., Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp. 219-318.

[38]

Rahwan, I., Guest editorial: Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS). v11 i2. 115-125.

Digital Library

[39]

Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S. and Sonenberg, L., Argumentation based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review. v18 i4. 343-375.

Digital Library

[40]

Rahwan, I. and Sakeer, P.V., Towards representing and querying arguments on the semantic web. In: Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Digital Library

[41]

Reed, C., Preliminary results from an argument corpus. In: Bermúdez, E.M., Miyares, L.R. (Eds.), Linguistics in the Twenty First Century, Cambridge Scholars Press.

[42]

Reed, C. and Katzav, J., On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation. v18 i2. 239-259.

[43]

In: Reed, C., Norman, T.J. (Eds.), Argumentation Library, vol. 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

[44]

Reed, C. and Rowe, G., Translating Toulmin diagrams: Theory neutrality in argument representation. Argumentation. v19. 267-286.

[45]

G.W.A. Rowe, C.A. Reed, J. Katzav, Araucaria: Marking up argument, in: European Conference on Computing and Philosophy, 2003

[46]

T. Salminen, M. Marttunen, L. Laurinen, Grounding and counter-argumentation during face-to-face and synchronous network debates in secondary school, in: F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), 2002

[47]

A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, Argument or explanation? propositional relations as clues for distinguishing arguments from explanations, in: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), 1998

[48]

A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, Indicators of analogy argumentation, in: F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), 2002

[49]

Sowa, J.F., Semantic networks. In: Shapiro, S.C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

[50]

Toulmin, S., The Uses of Argument. 1958. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[51]

Uren, V., Buckingham Shum, S., Bachler, M. and Li, G., Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. v64 i5. 420-445.

Digital Library

[52]

van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R.F., Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. 1992. Erlbaum.

[53]

van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.F. and Henkemans, F.S., Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Applications. 1996. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

[54]

Verheij, B., Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence. v150 i1--2. 291-324.

Digital Library

[55]

Verheij, B., Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. 2005. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague.

[56]

Völkel, M., Krötzsch, M., Vrandecic, D., Haller, H. and Studer, R., Semantic Wikipedia. In: Carr, L., Roure, D.D., Iyengar, A., Goble, C.A., Dahlin, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2006, ACM Press, New York.

Digital Library

[57]

Walton, D.N., Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. 1996. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Cited By

Zhang HLandowska ABudzynska K(2023)Detection and Analysis of Moral Values in ArgumentationValue Engineering in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_8(114-141)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_8
Kiesel JLang KWachsmuth HHornecker EStein BO'Brien HFreund LArapakis IHoeber OLopatovska I(2020)Investigating Expectations for Voice-based and Conversational Argument Search on the WebProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3343413.3377978(53-62)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3343413.3377978
Zagorulko YDomanov OSery ASidorova EBorovikova O(2020)Analysis of the Persuasiveness of Argumentation in Popular Science TextsArtificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26(351-367)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web

Recommendations

Arguments in OWL: A Progress Report
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008

In previous work, we presented an RDFS ontology, based on the Argument Interchange Format (AIF), for describing arguments and argument schemes. We also implemented a pilot Web-based system, called ArgDF, for authoring and querying argument structures ...
Formal Definitions of Reason Fallacies to Aid Defect Exploration in Argument Gaming
ICLA 2009: Proceedings of the 3rd Indian Conference on Logic and Its Applications - Volume 5378

Reason fallacies are fallacious reasons presented in arguments during argumentative discussions. The fallacious reasons do not support the claim of argument and therefore, the argument gets defeated. Defect exploration is the process of analysing ...
A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web

Argumentation represents the study of views and opinions that humans express with the goal of reaching a conclusion through logical reasoning. Since the 1950's, several models have been proposed to capture the essence of informal argumentation in ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Volume 171, Issue 10-15

July, 2007

320 pages

ISSN:0004-3702

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier B.V. © 2007.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2007

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

51
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhang HLandowska ABudzynska K(2023)Detection and Analysis of Moral Values in ArgumentationValue Engineering in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_8(114-141)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_8
Kiesel JLang KWachsmuth HHornecker EStein BO'Brien HFreund LArapakis IHoeber OLopatovska I(2020)Investigating Expectations for Voice-based and Conversational Argument Search on the WebProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3343413.3377978(53-62)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3343413.3377978
Zagorulko YDomanov OSery ASidorova EBorovikova O(2020)Analysis of the Persuasiveness of Argumentation in Popular Science TextsArtificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26(351-367)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26
Awad EBonnefon JCaminada MMalone TRahwan I(2017)Experimental Assessment of Aggregation Principles in Argumentation-Enabled Collective IntelligenceACM Transactions on Internet Technology10.1145/305337117:3(1-21)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3053371
Lawrence JPark JBudzynska KCardie CKonat BReed C(2017)Using Argumentative Structure to Interpret Debates in Online Deliberative Democracy and eRulemakingACM Transactions on Internet Technology10.1145/303298917:3(1-22)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3032989
Lawrence JSnaith MKonat BBudzynska KReed C(2017)Debating Technology for Dialogical ArgumentACM Transactions on Internet Technology10.1145/300721017:3(1-23)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3007210
Budn MSimari GViglizzo ISimari G(2017)An approach to characterize graded entailment of arguments through a label-based frameworkInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2016.12.01682:C(242-269)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.12.016
Medellin-Gasque RReed CHanson V(2016)Recommendations to support interaction with broadcast debatesAI & Society10.5555/2887208.288722431:1(109-120)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2887208.2887224
Cebrian MRahwan IPentland A(2016)Beyond viralCommunications of the ACM10.1145/281899259:4(36-39)Online publication date: 23-Mar-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2818992
Lippi MTorroni P(2016)MARGOTExpert Systems with Applications: An International Journal10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.05065:C(292-303)Online publication date: 15-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.050
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents